Khawaja gets nod over Harris for fifth Test, Boland may be out

So that went well……what exactly was achieved?? A reminder - last 3 innings Harris had occupied the crease for 9 hours, Warner 3 and Labuschagne 3 1/3 hours. Where’s everyone sit now??

Labuschagne is consistently good against the new ball. People say - He’s doing great at 3, don’t change it. The reality is that he and Smith are practically playing 2 and 3 already. Keep making the same wrong decision and you will keep getting the same poor outcome.

I totally agree.

Someone posted an analysis here not long ago and it showed his results declining constantly as a series progress.

I liked Silk but had thought his form dropped off. If he’s making runs opening in some sort of second coming that’s encouraging.

Wood needs to play suburban super turf cricket if he doesn't want footmarks on a turf wicket.

Opening and #3. Opening in Shield, middle order in white ball stuff.

Has Silk been opening?

I'm with Silk. He used to be talked up when he hadn't performed but he knows his game now and just stands up regularly. Averaging 70 this Shield season and starts plus 30 because of what he gives in the field. Mind you, Hunt is just as brilliant in the field.

I'd have Hunt and Whiteman ahead of Street.

No Davey. NOOOOOO!

I don’t know much about Jones’s personality other than the fact that his autobiography leaves one in little doubt that he was ‘never out’ as a batsman. However, he did seem to mellow in later years and not take himself so seriously, and most of us are guilty of that at least some times in our respective lives. But rather superfluous, against the stronger oppositions of his time, he was a non-contributor in wins, and the worst of the non-performers in losses. An average of 46 does not change that. PS, sorry about the double post earlier, but that is entirely the roar’s fault.

That doesn't negate the authentically dissected numbers I provided earlier in this conversation with Don Freo.

Warner was the only player from either team to score more than 500 runs in 2013/14 series at 70. The speed which he scored his runs allowed Clarke to declare at key points to put pressure on the opposition. I've got a longer innings by innings analysis but Roarers must be getting bored with this chat. Sorry, Roarers. Carn, Davey!

Lara’s 375, or 400 not out for that matter doesn’t diminish his record as such, but these are in no way the innings that define him. They were meaningless innings played in conditions where neither side ever had any even remote hope of snaring 20 opposition wickets – where is the greatness in that. I once made 175 not out as a 12 year old in the back yard of my 11 year old friend who was an intellectual friend rather than sporty friend. I smashed him and his 9 year old sister all over their back yard, and I have never before or since felt so in the zone. However, I rate my 89 in the back yard a year or so later much higher as it was played against my much more competitive brother and cousins, in a space of far fewer gaps in the field to exploit … Lara’s 153 not out in Bridgetown 1999 was a far superior innings to either his 375 or 400 not out, just as Michael Clarke’s 151 was a far superior innings to his 329 not out a few months later. Innings are not to be judged by sheer volume of runs, but other much more important factors. Which has more impact: a 750 ml bottle of beer, or a 375 ml bottle of rum?

My understanding was that Dean Jones was (allegedly) a tool who really annoyed his team mates? You've mentioned John Benaud a few times. Did Benaud advocate for the "horses for courses" model? Did he value runs over more circumstantial factors? I would argue that test runs are test runs. As previously stated on this chat: they are currency. I thought Ravi Shastri's 200 in Australia was one of the worst double centuries I've seen (I didn't see Dizzy's effort as night-watchman). But there it is. It's 200. I doubt anyone would wanna assess Ravi's padded runs. Ravi averaged 36 in 80. BTW: I much preferred Kris Srikkanth but he only averaged 30 in 43. Damn him. If a batsman top edges a ball flailing away and it goes for 6, it's still 6. Brandon McCallum's last test innings of 145 comes to mind. Ken Rutherford was the rising star for New Zealand. Then they picked him as opener against the mighty West Indies in 84. Poor Rutho scored 12 runs in 7 innings. Contextually it made sense: a bright young talent, who in the circumstances could bring his undoubted skills to make a difference at the start of each innings, and conceptually had a long career ahead of him (aka Wil Pucovski). Kenny didn't play another test till mid 86 because his average at that time was 1.71 and his career average ended up a lousy 27. He didn't lose his talent overnight. No player does. When fans speak with reverence of the likes of Bradman, Hammond, Headley, the three W's, Pollock, either Richards, Kallis...in part it's because of their test averages. Certainly some innings are considered greater contextually. Mark Greatbatch's courageous 146 not out in Perth over 11 hours is one. But he only played 41 tests averaging 30.62. If he, or Rutho, or Kris Srikkanth, or Mitch/Shaun Marsh scored and averaged more, they may have played as many tests and scored as many runs as Warner.

Warner has not been a complete flop at test cricket by any means. But he has also not been a genuine world class performer too often, even at home, and has not had any even remotely world class openers at shield level breathing down his neck for the duration of his entire career. He has been in some partnerships, but context is always needed and as good an example as any is his 158 run stand with Michael Clarke on the 3rd day of the first test of the 2013-14 Ashes. Australia began their second innings 159 ahead, or not at 0 for 0 but rather 0 for +159. When his opening partner, Chris Rogers, was out early on day 3, it was 1 for +226. It wasn’t a crisis when no 3 Watson failed to leave them 2 for +234. Lunch was taken at 2 for +304. So, the match has already passed its decisive point when the partnership has only reached 70, so hardly a match defining partnership, even to that point, when 8 wickets still stood and England already out of the match. That 158 partnership is not what won Australia the match. It was the 7th wicket partnership of 133 from 6 for 132 on the first day between Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson, and then of course Mitchell Johnson’s bowling that won Australia the test. Warner made 49 on that critical first day and was 4th out with the total only on 83.

Mike Brearley didn’t play more tests for several reasons. When England had a very capable skipper in Tony Grieg, who was also a fine cricketer, they didn’t need a specialist captain who was possibly not even a good enough batsman to even hold a spot in a county side. Then Brearley left test cricket of his own accord, twice. The first time was in early 1980, when it was assumed that golden all-rounder Ian Botham would be an excellent captain. Then when that went completely pear shaped, Brearley was coaxed back not quite midway through the 1981 Ashes, he made it clear he was only willing to do the rest of that same series, win, lose or draw. Krezja may have taken 8 wickets in an innings, but he also conceded more than 200 runs in doing so, in fact virtually half India’s entire total. It was a stock, rather than strike bowling performances and if that is a bowler’s best, then their not up to test standard – selectors don’t need to look at his average to figure that out. Michael Bevan didn’t play more test cricket because he couldn’t play the short ball and he played in an era where at least four of our opponents had top class fast bowlers. Nothing to do with his average. Shaun Tait could not bowl fast and maintain accuracy and control too much longer than 4 overs in any given day which made him a dud for anything other than T20. Again, selectors don’t need to look at his average, merely the fact that he didn’t get good test batsman out with anywhere near enough regularity when given opportunities. Devon Malcom was a hot and cold enigma, but his hot enough and often enough that Steve Waugh wrote in his 800 page autobiography that he and his batting colleagues always breathed a huge sigh of belief whenever the conversative English selectors left him out in favour of a piddling line and length medium pacer. Don’t know too much about Lee Germon other than the 1996 world cup final, but again, I would say he just couldn’t exert impact at test level, and again, selectors don’t need to google his average to know this – they only have to watch him in action when they give him a chance to show what he can do. Cameron Bancroft did not play a single significant innings during the 10 or so tests he was picked for, so again we don’t need to look up averages – just watch him in action. Renshaw was dropped on early season shield form, rather than most recent test form, and this is something Ian Chappell is extremely critical of. Joe Burns is too hit and miss. Marcus Harris is simply out of his depth, and we only need to watch him struggle with our own eyes to know this, we do not need to know his raw average. Dean Jones is another you could have mentioned. Selectors didn’t need to look up his average in Wisden. They had seen him struggle big time in three successive test series against England 1990-91, West Indies 1991 and then India 1991-92. They weren’t fooled by him topping the averages in Sri Lanka in late 1992 for two reasons: 1. They knew it was more than likely an aberration in his poor record over the past two years, 2. They followed that series closely and knew that a fair portion of his runs were made in soft situations that didn’t really matter, namely when a match was already doomed to a draw when he went in and 3. The next series was against the mighty West Indies, against whom, Jones had never reached 50 in 7 non-dead rubber tests. It would have been extremely foolish to retain him based on a superficial, miss-leading raw average of 46 – one of the selectors at the time, John Benaud, said as much, albeit somewhat more diplomatically, in his book ‘Matters of Choice’.

Mike Brearley didn’t play more tests for several reasons. When England had a very capable skipper in Tony Grieg, who was also a fine cricketer, they didn’t need a specialist captain who was possibly not even a good enough batsman to even hold a spot in a county side. Then Brearley left test cricket of his own accord, twice. The first time was in early 1980, when it was assumed that golden all-rounder Ian Botham would be an excellent captain. Then when that went completely pear shaped, Brearley was coaxed back not quite midway through the 1981 Ashes, he made it clear he was only willing to do the rest of that same series, win, lose or draw. Krezja may have taken 8 wickets in an innings, but he also conceded more than 200 runs in doing so, in fact virtually half India’s entire total. It was a stock, rather than strike bowling performances and if that is a bowler’s best, then their not up to test standard – selectors don’t need to look at his average to figure that out. Michael Bevan didn’t play more test cricket because he couldn’t play the short ball and he played in an era where at least four of our opponents had top class fast bowlers. Nothing to do with his average. Shaun Tait could not bowl fast and maintain accuracy and control too much longer than 4 overs in any given day which made him a dud for anything other than T20. Again, selectors don’t need to look at his average, merely the fact that he didn’t get good test batsman out with anywhere near enough regularity when given opportunities. Devon Malcom was a hot and cold enigma, but his hot enough and often enough that Steve Waugh wrote in his 800 page autobiography that he and his batting colleagues always breathed a huge sigh of belief whenever the conversative English selectors left him out in favour of a piddling line and length medium pacer. Don’t know too much about Lee Germon other than the 1996 world cup final, but again, I would say he just couldn’t exert impact at test level, and again, selectors don’t need to google his average to know this – they only have to watch him in action when they give him a chance to show what he can do. Cameron Bancroft did not play a single significant innings during the 10 or so tests he was picked for, so again we don’t need to look up averages – just watch him in action. Renshaw was dropped on early season shield form, rather than most recent test form, and this is something Ian Chappell is extremely critical of. Joe Burns is too hit and miss. Marcus Harris is simply out of his depth, and we only need to watch him struggle with our own eyes to know this, we do not need to know his raw average. Dean Jones is another you could have mentioned. Selectors didn’t need to look up his average in Wisden. They had seen him struggle big time in three successive test series against England 1990-91, West Indies 1991 and then India 1991-92. They weren’t fooled by him topping the averages in Sri Lanka in late 1992 for two reasons: 1. They knew it was more than likely an aberration in his poor record over the past two years, 2. They followed that series closely and knew that a fair portion of his runs were made in soft situations that didn’t really matter, namely when a match was already doomed to a draw when he went in and 3. The next series was against the mighty West Indies, against whom, Jones had never reached 50 in 7 non-dead rubber tests. It would have been moronic to retain him based on a superficial, miss-leading raw average of 46 – one of the selectors at the time, John Benaud, said as much, albeit somewhat more diplomatically, in his book ‘Matters of Choice’.

Common sense, Khawaja had to play after scoring & averaging 238 for the Last test.... I personally would of probably just shifted everyone up one rather than throwing Khawaja from the middle to the top... But wouldn't put it past Uzzy to score another score..... He's got form down in Hobart. I remember shield game down there either last season or the season before were he got near 150, next best score for the game was 30. She was a nice Hobart Greeny... much like what the Test wicket looks like.... Go well Uzzy